The vast chasm between what the Sussexes wanted and what they got
THE Duke and Duchess of Sussex had boldly declared that they would pursue a “progressive new role” within the Royal family. Yet in the event, they ended up with no role at all.
The differences between the future role confidently outlined by the couple when they first signalled their intentions to “step back” and the reality are stark, suggesting that the Queen denied them their wish to keep one foot within the Firm.
When the Sussexes made their shock announcement on Jan 8, it was accompanied by the launch of a glossy new website, jam-packed with statements about how their new lives would look. But on Saturday evening it became clear the Sussexes had jumped the gun.
What they said: They would “carve out a progressive new role” and “adjust their working model”.
The reality: They will not have a role in the institution and as such, no working model. Their lives as members of the Firm will end in the spring. Instead, the couple are free to seek employment as they see fit with no scrutiny.
What they said: They would continue their royal duties and “fully support” the Queen, the Commonwealth and their patronages. Their website said they would “continue to collaborate” while also working “externally”.
The reality: Buckingham Palace made clear that following five days of intense negotiations, the Sussexes would no longer represent the Queen in any capacity. Their work will be undertaken independently and there appears little scope for any collaboration. As such, all of their work will be external.
What they said: The framework for their new careers has been built around the Sussex Royal brand.
The reality: The use of that moniker now hangs in jeopardy with royal aides admitting they did not know whether the couple would be free to continue trading on their “royal” heritage.
If they are told they cannot use the term, they will be forced to rebrand their social media platforms, website and their new charitable foundation. What they said: They would adopt a “revised media approach” and would no longer participate in the traditional “royal rota”, which allows mainstream media organisations to share access to official engagements.
The reality: Having been cut free from all aspects of royal working life, their engagements would no longer be eligible for coverage by the royal rota, which includes royal correspondents, the Press Association news agency, broadcasters and photographers.
A hint of their new modus operandi came last week when the Duchess made two private visits to charities in Vancouver. Details were later revealed by the organisations on Twitter, but only the Duchess had approved the words and photographs.
What they said: That 95 per cent of their funding is derived from income from the Duchy of Cornwall via the Prince of Wales.
The reality: The Prince of Wales has agreed to privately finance them in the short term, although this is more likely to be from his private income.
Sources also stressed that Prince Charles is viewing this arrangement within the parameters of the one-year trial period before a family review of the arrangement.
What they said: The refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage was funded by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant, “reflecting the monarchy’s responsibility to maintain the upkeep of buildings with historical significance”.
The reality: The couple have agreed to repay the £2.4 million refurbishment cost.
What they said: They would be entitled to armed security by the Metropolitan Police as they are classified as “internationally protected people”. The reality: The incorrect reference to “internationally protected people” was removed from the site quite swiftly but while Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on security arrangements, most experts agree it is unlikely that British police will be expected to maintain a presence in Canada.